Abstract
Background Recent evidence suggests that there is often substantial variation in the benefits and harms across a trial population. We aimed to identify regression modeling approaches that assess heterogeneity of treatment effect within a randomized clinical trial.
Methods We performed a literature review using a broad search strategy, complemented by suggestions of a technical expert panel.
Results The approaches are classified into 3 categories: 1) Risk-based methods (11 papers) use only prognostic factors to define patient subgroups, relying on the mathematical dependency of the absolute risk difference on baseline risk; 2) Treatment effect modeling methods (9 papers) use both prognostic factors and treatment effect modifiers to explore characteristics that interact with the effects of therapy on a relative scale. These methods couple data-driven subgroup identification with approaches to prevent overfitting, such as penalization or use of separate data sets for subgroup identification and effect estimation. 3) Optimal treatment regime methods (12 papers) focus primarily on treatment effect modifiers to classify the trial population into those who benefit from treatment and those who do not. Finally, we also identified papers which describe model evaluation methods (4 papers).
Conclusion Three classes of approaches were identified to assess heterogeneity of treatment effect. Methodological research, including both simulations and empirical evaluations, is required to compare the available methods in different settings and to derive well-informed guidance for their application in RCT analysis.
Key messages
Heterogeneity of treatment effect refers to the non-random variation in the direction or magnitude of a treatment effect for individuals within a population.
A large number of regression-based predictive approaches to the analysis of treatment effect heterogeneity exists, which can be divided into three broad classes based on if they incorporate: prognostic factors (risk-based methods); treatment effect modifiers (optimal treatment regime methods); or both (treatment effect modeling methods).
Simulations and empirical evaluations are required to compare the available methods in different settings and to derive well-informed guidance for their application in RCT analysis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by a Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) contract, the Predictive Analytics Resource Center [SA.Tufts.PARC.OSCO.2018.01.25]. We also acknowledge support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI).
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data collected for systematic review is publically available on Medline and Cochrane Central.
